Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
Be vewy, vewy quiet ... we're hunting gwoundhogs!
F4U in Europe
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Having just started reading said book, I am surprised how far back the involvement of the RAF/ Air ministry went and why. The true story gives the lie to any conspiracy theory that the British were trying to screw up US manufacturers. A great read so far.
fubar57
General
But....but...but a Groundhog "expert" said so
You got me, really the Brits were fighting a war and were only interested in complete crap.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
There may have been, I have forgotten.
But basically you have two different F4Us until you are well into 1944.
The older ones have 361/3 gallons plus a single 150 drop tank. However out of the 3 internal tanks 162-4 gallons are in the two unprotected wing tanks. Even with a CO 2 system or some sort of inert gas/cooled exhaust system you only have 234 gallon of protected fuel to get home with. The gas system/s may keep the tank from catching fire but they doesn't keep the fuel from leaking out on the trip home. The P-47s had 305 gallons. Both planes are going to warm up, taxi out and take off using the internal tank/s until safe altitude before switching over and doing the climb out/ form up.
Later F4Us had 234 gallons internal and two 150 gallon drop tanks.
Problem with the F4U is that unless running on water injection you can use up 75 gallon of fuel in 15 minutes, or 90 gallons in 20 minutes as your combat allowance. With tanks gone you have about roughly 75% of the protected fuel of a P-47. Which roughly means you are going to have 75% or the less of radius the P-47. It doesn't matter what kind of fuel calculations you do before you drop the tanks. What matters is the fuel left in the protected tank/s to get the pilot home after combat.
The P-47 Is also faster by almost 30mph at the speeds they want to escort at. At above 22,000 the P-47 will have better climb and it just gets per better the higher it goes compared to the F4U.The P-47 will have slightly better fuel consumption at the the altitudes they want to escort at due to the turbo.
Yup, we gotta keep the masses happy by perpetuating the myths. Can't have well informed individuals releasing those pesky "facts" into the mix...
(The fact that Britain did produce the odd bit of crap here and there is a different story, the British can't pollute their own crap with foreign rubbish. As a former de Havilland engineer said to me once, "well, it maybe crap, but it's BRITISH crap!")
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
No apologies needed my friend, my comment wasn't directed at you.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
It's on my list after I finish Bendiner and Lundstrom is up after that. Looking forward to it.
wuzak
Captain
I know the comparison with the P-47 has been made, but it is surely useful to see if the F4U could do it at all before comparing it to other aircraft?
drgondog
Major
If you look at the P-47 Operations Charts, the fuel consumption (for P-47) for warm up, takeoff, climb will be conservative as the F4U combat loaded is lighter than P-47. What I have not seen are data for cruise speeds with and without combat tanks. There again, specific fuel consumption should be close at 20K, diverging a bit at 25K.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Well, for the P-38, the P-47 and the P-51 the P-47 was the worst of the bunch in regards to range/radius.
Why bring in a 4th type of fighter if you know it won't even match the P-47.
The US used an arbitrary standard but the 3 fighters were all compared the same one way. The F4U held less protected fuel, it won't fly as well at the desired altitude. 25,000ft at the desired cruise speed.
Once you start making excuses (lower cruise speeds or less than a common altitude) you are already admitting the new plane you are talking about won't do the job.
wuzak
Captain
I found a take-off and climbing chart for the F4U-1, but not a cruise chart.
At 11,700lb t/o weight the fuel used to 25,000ft was 55 USG.
At 13,100lb t/o weight the fuel used to 25,000ft was 71 USG.
At 14,200lb t/o weight the fuel used to 25,000ft was 86 USG.
Which includes allowance for warm-up and take-off.
At 11,700lb t/o weight the fuel used to 25,000ft was 55 USG.
At 13,100lb t/o weight the fuel used to 25,000ft was 71 USG.
At 14,200lb t/o weight the fuel used to 25,000ft was 86 USG.
Which includes allowance for warm-up and take-off.
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
That explains the Cromwell, doesn't it?
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 912
- Feb 16, 2013
That was the joke
The Americans had the last laugh though, they left all the armour and self sealing tanks in, just to teach the Brits a lesson
I'm seeing a lot of discussion about the range of different planes according to "the book." But I recall reading that when Charles Lindbergh got to the South Pacific, he had some ideas for extending the range of their P-38s, and those ideas met with some resistance because they weren't "according to the book." Lindbergh's position was that he knew something about extending the range of an airplane by leaning the gas/air mixture, having done it when he flew across the Atlantic. Still, resistance. But he persuaded them to let him show them, and, sure enough, Lindbergh was right, and he got something like double the range that a P-38 was supposed to have, without wrecking the engines.
Anyway, that was from memory. Anybody here have more information on that matter, and speculation about how it might apply to this discussion (if at all)?
Anyway, that was from memory. Anybody here have more information on that matter, and speculation about how it might apply to this discussion (if at all)?
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
Didn't they do that with Corsairs too?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
He did...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually Lindberg didn't really do too much out side "the book" (as you call it). What Lindbergh did was show squadrons that flying at a lower RPM at Auto Lean while slightly rising manifold pressure increased engine efficiency, getting the engine to operate at "Lean of Peak." I'm sure some of our engine experts will chime in but this technique is still used today on GA recip operations
Whatever the specific suggestion was, everybody thought it would wreck the engines, and therefore were reluctant even to try it. Lindbergh assured them it would NOT wreck the engines, but they were still hesitant. I don't remember how he persuaded them to try, but they finally did, and then it was all good.
